Nigeria’s political class and legal community are divided over what a fresh Supreme Court judgment means for candidates already fielded for the 2027 elections, with two major parties declining to state a position until they see the certified text and lawyers reading the decision in sharply different ways.
The apex court ruled on Thursday, 24 September 2026, that the Independent National Electoral Commission holds authority over political parties’ membership registers and the nomination of candidates. A seven member panel, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, set aside a Court of Appeal decision of 16 July that had voided the relevant provisions, and awarded costs of N2 million against the Zenith Labour Party, whose suit began the matter.
The judgment restores Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, holding that they are not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. Under those sections, only persons whose names appear on a party’s register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary may take part in it, parties must use the register they filed with the commission, and a party that fails to submit its register within the set period cannot field a candidate. Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as the methods of nomination.
The two largest parties have held their tongues. The national secretary of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Senator Ajibola Basiru, told the Nigerian Tribune that his party was not a party to the suit and would not comment on a judgment it had not read, adding that it had asked INEC for a copy. The Peoples Democratic Party took the same line, with its national publicity secretary, Jungudo Haruna Mohammed, saying the party could not react until it received the certified true copy.
INEC itself has not settled its position. Its national commissioner for information and voter education, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, said the commission had not met to weigh the implications because the ruling came late in the week, and that it would wait for advice from its legal department before deciding anything.
Where the parties are cautious, the lawyers are candid, and they do not agree. A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ahmed Raji, told the Tribune that the question of retroactivity did not arise because the court had simply declared what the law had always been. In his account, the provisions were valid from the day the Act was passed, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that at the highest level.
Another Senior Advocate, Abiodun Layonu, drew a finer distinction. He noted that legislation does not ordinarily operate retrospectively unless it says so, but argued that a judicial pronouncement is different in character, since the court has authoritatively fixed the legal status of provisions that were part of the Act from enactment. On that reading, he said, conduct occurring after the law took effect can fall under the provisions, and a candidate could not necessarily shelter behind the earlier Court of Appeal decision.
Others urged restraint in applying the ruling to individuals. The lawyers Ubong Esop Akpan and Victor Giwa cautioned INEC against treating the judgment as an automatic disqualification of any candidate. Akpan, who said he preferred the Court of Appeal’s emphasis on party autonomy, stressed that the apex court had settled the validity of the statute but not the standing of particular candidates. Giwa added that many parties had conducted primaries in reliance on the Court of Appeal decision and should not now be penalised for it.
That distinction matters because several candidates are already being cited as exposed, and their camps are pushing back. The Social Democratic Party said its Nasarawa governorship candidate, former Inspector General of Police Mohammed Adamu, remained validly nominated, with its spokesman Araba Rufus Ayenigba saying Adamu joined the party on 24 May 2026 and was listed on the register forwarded to INEC well before the substitution primary of 5 September. The Nigeria Democratic Congress likewise dismissed suggestions that the ruling threatened the nomination of its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, with its spokesman Osa Director describing such reports as mischief.
The dispute over reach extends to the states. A Kwara based lawyer, Taofiq Olateju, said the judgment should not be read as automatically nullifying the nominations of politicians who recently defected and emerged as candidates elsewhere, arguing that each case turns on its own facts, the relevant register and documentary evidence rather than political declarations.
What is settled is narrow but significant. The Supreme Court has affirmed INEC’s regulatory hold over registers and nomination procedures ahead of 2027, and reversed the appellate ruling that had loosened it. What remains open is how the commission will apply that authority to candidates whose emergence is now being questioned, a matter that will turn on the certified judgment, the facts of each nomination and, in all likelihood, further litigation before the general election.